HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/1994 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 11, 1994
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2] Murphy's Landing/Letter of Intent to Purchase
3] Chaska Interceptor Agreement
4] 1994 Pay Plan for Officers and Non-Union Employees
5] Other Business
6] Adjourn to Tuesday, January 18, 1994
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney
DATE: January 7 , 1994
RE: Murphy's Landing
BACKGROUND:
In December the City Council directed staff to draft and
negotiate a new lease agreement with the Minnesota Valley
Restoration Project for the land known as Murphy's Landing. The
existing lease lacks many details and needs to be completely
rewritten. In order to give an appropriate amount of time for the
drafting, the existing lease was extended until January 31, 1994 .
After the second Council meeting in December, the Mayor and
City staff were contacted by Thomas Reiter, who indicated that he
represented certain clients who are interested in purchasing
Murphy's Landing. Mr. Reiter's clients wish to remain
confidential. In order for them to have sufficient time to
negotiate with the City and with the Minnesota Valley Restoration
Project, he is asking for the City to grant another short extension
to the existing lease.
DISCUSSION:
If a short extension is granted, it will give Mr. Reiter time
to discuss his clients' plans further with the Minnesota Valley
Restoration Project, and obtain their consent or informed
objection. It also will give him time to discuss this further with
City and County officials.
If the request for a short extension is denied, the City
Attorney will begin immediately to draft the new lease. The new
lease will take a considerable amount of time to draft properly
with the conditions and qualifications desired. Mr. Reiter's
clients may withdraw their request to enter into negotiations if
the City enters into a new long-term lease. The Minnesota Valley
Restoration Project will be able to proceed with their plans for
1994 , including completing the hiring of an executive director.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Grant the requested extension for a "short term" .
2 . Deny the request.
3 . Table for further information from staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss the requested extension and choose whether to grant or
deny it. If granted, select a new termination date for the lease.
JAN-07-94 FRI 14:06 LAW OFFICE FAX NO. 2248328 P. 02
Thomas J. Reiter & Associates
Attorneys at UM'
The Saint Paul Building
6 west Fifth Street, Seventh Floor
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1420
Telephone (612) 297.6400 Pax (612) 224.8328
Thomas J. Reiter
Jay L.Johnson
January 7, 1994 Rebecca F.Schiller
The Honorable Gary Laurent VIA FAX: 445-6718
Mayor of Shakopee
City Hall
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Murphy's Landing
LETTER OF INTENT To PURCHASE
Dear Mayor Laurent:
Please accept this as a letter of intention to enter into
negotiations for the purchase of property known as Murphy's Landing
in Shakopee, Minnesota. My clients intend to proceed with sincere
purchase negotiations with all involved parties in an effort to
negotiate and propose a formal purchase offer.
I understand that an Agreement for the Operation and
Management between the City of Shakopee and the M.V.R.P. , Inc.
expired on December 31, 1993 and was recently amended to extend the
termination date to January 31, 1994. In light of the pending
purchase negotiations this letter is to respectfully request that
the City Council consider a short term extension of the management
contract at this time.
I thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
l • rale
Thomas J. Reiter
Attorney At Law
TJR/mw
cc: Karen Marty, City Attorney
Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
Cliff McCann, Scott County Administrator
Jake Manahan
F.R'
1P-4-n7-1994 13:09
# 3
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Chaska Interceptor
DATE: January 6, 1994
BACKGROUND:
At the December 14, 1993 Committee of the Whole meeting, the City Council requested
additional information regarding the estimated costs for the various options available to the City.
The following items are in response to the City Council requests.
Directing all City of Savage to MWCC Lift Station L-16
The City Council directed staff to develop a cost estimate to run all sewage flow to the MWCC
Lift Station L-16 rather than utilize the new Chaska Interceptor.
Staff has done that and has developed two additional options, F and G, as indicated in the
January 4, 1994 revised letter from the City's consultant, Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Inc. (SEH)
(attached). Basically, Alternative F includes the ultimate service area (including Jackson
Township lands) while Alternative G excludes any township land.
The costs for these options are indicated in the respective tables.
Physically, all sewers can drain to L-16 or into existing Interceptors without needing the Chaska
Interceptor. This would result in sewer depths of about 40 feet at 10th Avenue, but it could be
done. Cost wise, these are the most expensive options available.
In addition, there will be the need to upgrade L-16 and the forcemain and this upgrade is
estimated at around $6 million above and beyond the other costs for these options.
Staff does not feel that the MWCC would make these improvements and there is the possibility
that they would turn L-16 back to the City, which would make the City responsible for the
upgrades.
Based on the cost estimates alone, Alternative B (participating in the Chaska Interceptor) is
clearly the best option.
Easement Costs
If the City installs our own facilities, there will probably be the need to acquire easements.
Alternatives C-G have been revised to include easement acquisition costs. These costs are around
$1.0 million. The City could obtain easements through the platting process, but depending on
when the sewers need to be constructed, there is a high likelihood that not all properties will be
platted, so some easement acquisitions will be required.
Maintenance Costs
The City Council inquired about the maintenance costs for our own facilities. The actual pipe
maintenance costs are probably not significant (less than $20,000 annually), but several of the
options result in multiple lift stations which do have a substantially higher operating &
maintenance costs. Of even more importance are the replacement costs for all the pipes in 50
years. These will be substantial for all City facilities.
Maps
Staff will have maps available for all options, including the new options, at the January 11th
Committee of the Whole meeting.
DEH/pmp
MEETING
,58,1
5909 BAKER ROAD,SUITE 590,MINNETONKA,MN 55345 612 931-9501 FAX 612 93 1-1 188
ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION
October 12, 1993 RE: Shakopee, Minnesota
Revised January 4, 1994 Miscellaneous Services
Trunk Sewer Alternatives for South Shakopee
SEH File No.: SHAK02423.00
Dave Hutton, P.E.
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Dave:
You had requested that SEH further explore what options might be available to the City of Shakopee should
negotiations with the MWCC and Met Council fail relative to cost-sharing of the gravity Chaska Interceptor.
Work done by SEH during the negotiations provided certain information. Cost estimates were also prepared
for a South Shakopee interceptor sewer system, along the TH101 Bypass from the Prior Lake Interceptor
westerly to County Road 17, as part of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. With this information as
background,we further evaluated what options the City of Shakopee might have.
Alternatives A through E were discussed at a Committee of the Whole meeting on December 14,1993,with
MWCC and Metropolitan Council staff members present. The City Council requested additional
information on other options which might be available. At a meeting with you on December 20,we defined
two additional alternatives which are expected to answer the City Council's questions. Alternatives F and
G are reported on herein. The range of options now includes the following:
Alternative A
This alternative addresses service only to the current MUSA boundary. Urban residential land
demand would need to be satisfied by land use and zoning changes creating urban residential
property out of vacant industrial or commercial property already within the MUSA boundary. The
land within the current MUSA boundary can be serviced without using the proposed Chaska
Interceptor. Trunk sewer extensions need to be made (VIP and Rahr Malting) along with other
local extensions. In addition,the MWCC will need to upgrade Lift Station L-16 and the forcemain,
MWCC Interceptor 7024. As the area tributary to MWCC Interceptor 7023 (Shakopee
Interceptor) reaches saturation, this interceptor would become surcharged and would need to be
supplemented at a cost of$1.2 million as estimated by the MWCC.
The City would not need to construct the VIP diversion, but would need to construct a crossing
of the TH101 Bypass at County Road 17 to serve Sewer Districts VP-H and SS-I. The lift station
at the east end of 12th Avenue and the lift station at Secretariat Drive would need to be kept in
operation. An additional lift station servicing Sewer District VP-I north of CSAH16 and west of
Secretariat Drive would need to be constructed.
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC. ST.PAUL,MN ST CLOUD.MN CHIPPEWA FALLS. WI MADISON,WI
Dave Hutton, P.E.
October 12, 1993
Page 2
The components and approximate costs for Alternative A are listed in the attached cost summaries.
Alternative B
In order to accommodate development of any of the Jackson Township property north of the
Bypass or any additional land south of the Bypass and west of the Prior Lake Interceptor,the VIP
diversion and additional trunk and interceptor sewers would be needed. Alternative B assumes an
MWCC gravity interceptor is constructed. This alternative would provide maximum service to the
County Road 17 area. The service area could extend southerly to include Sewer Districts SW-E
and SW-F and part of Jackson Township south of the Bypass, or instead of SW-E and SW-F,
include more of Jackson Township south of the Bypass. MWCC cost-sharing alternatives assume
some service to Jackson Township. The City's cost for a gravity Chaska Interceptor will be better
defined upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan and receipt of bids on the interceptor.
Alternative C
Alternative C assumes that the MWCC builds a forcemain all the way to the Prior Lake
Interceptor, with the City constructing the South Shakopee Interceptor Sewer as shown on the
April 5, 1993, "City of Shakopee Ultimate Trunk Sanitary Sewer System" map. This alternative
would serve the "ultimate" service area including Jackson Township, most of which would be
developed after the year 2040.
Alternative D
Alternative D is similar to Alternative C,but would not serve any Jackson Township property south
of the TH101 Bypass.
Alternative E
Alternative E serves the same area as Alternative D. However,this alternative uses a shallow pipe
making a lift station necessary to service approximately half of Sewer District SS-F and it does not
eliminate the two existing lift stations north of the TH101 Bypass. Alternative E is more practical
to construct than Alternatives C and D due to its shallower depth near an 8" gas main.
Alternative F
Alternative F, like Alternative C, assumes that the MWCC builds a forcemain all the way to the
Prior Lake Interceptor. The City would construct a new interceptor sewer from the intersection
of County Road 17 and the Trunk Highway 101 Bypass northerly in County Road 17 to MWCC
Lift Station L-16. The interceptor would intercept the VIP Trunk Sewer flow and all of the sewage
generated in Sewer Subdistricts ED-C,ED-D,and ED-B. Interception of the VIP Trunk Sewer flow
at County Road 17 frees up capacity in the VIP Trunk Sewer downstream. Service to the area east
of County Road 17 and west of County Road 83 would be provided by another crossing of the
Bypass northerly to the VIP Trunk Sewer. A smaller South Shakopee interceptor sewer would be
needed from County Road 16/83 easterly to the Prior Lake Interceptor. The two existing lift
Dave Hutton, P.E.
October 12, 1993
Page 3
stations at 12th Avenue and Secretariat Drive would need to remain and a lift station for the south
half of Sewer District SS-F and the west half of Sewer District VP-I would need to be constructed.
This alternative, like Alternative C, would serve the "ultimate" service area including all of
Jackson Township, most of which will be developed after the year 2040 per Met Council
projections. Diverting this flow northerly to L-16 will require the MWCC to construct a
substantially larger lift station, replace the forcemain from Lift Station L-16 easterly to the
Shakopee Interceptor (7023), and reconstruct 7023 to the Prior Lake Interceptor.
Alternative G
This alternative is the same as Alternative F except that it would not serve any Jackson Township
property south of the Trunk Highway 101 Bypass, resulting in the same service area as
Alternatives D or E.
Alternative Comparisons
Some of the cost summaries are fairly accurate (feasibility study accuracy), while other cost
estimates are less accurate and were generated purely for purposes of this quick comparison. The
present worth analysis for the operation and maintenance costs on the lift stations is based on the
previous analysis done for the lift station at Secretariat Drive. The present worth for the
construction projects is the same as the project cost, indicating an assumption of all components
being constructed in the same year, or the interest rate matching the construction cost inflation
rate. No present worth was assigned for O&M costs on the gravity sewers. Estimated easement
costs are included.
Review of Alternatives B through G indicates that the present worth of Alternative B (Chaska
Interceptor) is the lowest.
Alternative B also removes any lift station ownership responsibilities and, in fact, most of the
ownership responsibilities of the entire interceptor system. The operation and maintenance cost
avoided under Alternative B is probably under $20,000 per year,but the future replacement cost
avoided at the end of the 50-year design period is substantial.
Alternatives C through G introduce easement acquisition and wetland mitigation issues due to the
need to locate trunks/interceptors outside of the TH101 Bypass right-of-way. Wetland issues have
not yet been specifically addressed.
Alternative E has the lowest cost if the City chooses to not participate in the gravity Chaska
Interceptor. Alternatives E through G result in City ownership of several lift stations,which also
have undesirable non-financial aspects associated with them.
Finally, Alternatives F and G would put a significant financial burden on the MWCC as noted in
the cost summaries. If one of these alternatives is pursued by the City, the MWCC would likely
opt to turn over L-16, 7024, and 7023 to the City for ownership and maintenance.
II
Dave Hutton, P.E.
October 12, 1993
Page 4
Considering all of the foregoing, it appears that Alternative B would be in the overall best interest of the
City. However, if negotiations on the gravity Chaska Interceptor should cease and the MWCC builds a
forcemain all the way to the Prior Lake Interceptor,Alternatives C through G all provide for future growth,
with Alternative E being the most cost effective.
We'll be happy to meet with you or others to more fully explain the background information behind the
alternatives presented and the comments provided above. If you require anything further, please feel free
to call.
Sincerely,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
1261/1A:ai
Daniel R. Boxrud, P.E.
ymb
Alternative A
Service to Current MUSA
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 to VIP 200,000 200,000
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA 99;360
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA 99,360
L.S. for VP-I 32,000 32,000
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA 99,360
VIP Diversion NA NA
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 NA NA
SSiS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 NA NA
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. NA NA
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B — NA _ NA
Easement Cost (0 Acres) 0 0
Less Credit for Diversions [$133,000]' 0 0
Total $912,000 $1,210,080
'This would not be approved by Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against.
Alternative B
MWCC Gravity Interceptor
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA NA
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA NA
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 570,000 570,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 391,410' 391,4101
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. 130,000 130,000
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B 4,891,780 4,891,780
Easement Cost (0 Acres) 0 0
Less Credit for Diversions [1,325,863] [1,325,863]
Total $5,337,327 $5,337,327
"Difference in estimated cost between MWCC Alternatives 3A and 3B.
Alternative C
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing
SSIS as Shown on April 5, 1993, Drawing -
Serves "Ultimate" Service Area
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA NA
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA NA
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 570,000 570,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 (60") 5,300,000 5,300,000
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 950,000 950,000
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (36") 700,000 700,000
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. 130,000 130,000
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Easement Cost (68 Acres) 1,276,310 1,276,310
Less Credit for Diversions [$1,325,863] 0 0
Total $9,606,310 $9,606,310
'This would not be approved by Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against.
Alternative D
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing SSIS
as Shown on April 5, 1993, Drawing,
Except No Service to Jackson Township South of TH101 Bypass
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA NA
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA NA
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 570,000 570,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 (48") 4,400,000 4,400,000
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 535,000 535,000
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (18") 350,000 350,000
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. 130,000 130,000
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Easement Cost (64 Acres) 1,206,610 1,206,610
Less Credit for Diversions [$1,325,863]' 0 0
Total $7,871,610 $7,871,610
'This would not be approved by Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against.
Alternative E
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing a Shallow SSIS
to Serve only Shakopee and
Not Eliminate Two Existing and One Future Lift Station
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA 99,360
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA 99.360
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 530,000 530,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 (36") 2,600,000 2,600,000
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 535,000 535,000
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (18") 350,000 350,000
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. NA NA
L.S. for SS-F 100,000 100,000
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA 150,000
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Easement Cost (54 Acres) 993,170 993,170
Less Credit for Diversions [$1,325,863]' 0 0
Total $5,788,170 $6,136,890
'This would not be approved by Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against.
Alternative F
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing CR17 Interceptor
from TH 101 Bypass to L-16
to Serve Ultimate Service Area and
Not Eliminate Two Existing and Two Future Lift Stations
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 to L-16 4,290,000 4,290,000
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA 99,360
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA 99,360
L.S. for VP-I 32,000 32,000
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA 99,360
VIP Connection 101/16 390,000 390,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 1,030,000 1,030,000
(21")
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (36") 700,000 700,000
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. NA NA
L.S. for SS-F 100,000 100,000
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA 150,000
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Easement Cost (29 Acres) 596,770 596,770
Less Credit for Diversions [$1,325,8631' 0 0
Total $7,818,770 $8,266,850
'This would not be approved by Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against.
Additional MWCC Sewers:
New L-16 to handle 13,500 gpm $2,000,000
New 7024 Forcemain (dual 36") $2,720,000
New (parallel) Shakopee Interceptor (42" to 48") $1,945,000
Total $6,665,000
Alternative G
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing CR17 Interceptor
from TH101 to L-16
to Serve only Shakopee and
Not Eliminate Two Existing and Two Future Lift Stations
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 to L-16 4,060,000 4,060,000
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA 99,360
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA 99,360
L.S. for VP-I 32,000 32,000
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA 99,360
VIP Connection 101/16 390,000 390,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 1,030,000 1,030,000
(21")
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (18") 350,000 350,000
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. NA NA
L.S. for SS-F 100,000 100,000
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA 150,000
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Easement Cost (29 Acres) 596,770 596,770
, Less Credit for Diversions [$1,325,863]' 0 0
Total $7,238,770 $7,686,850
'This would not be approved by Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against.
Additional MWCC Sewers:
New L-16 to handle 11,000 gpm $1,800,000
New 7024 Forcemain (dual 30") $2,315,000
New (parallel) Shakopee Interceptor (42" to 48") $1,875,000
Total $5,990,000
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE
FOR THE CHASKA INTERCEPTOR AND PROVIDING
SEWER SERVICE TO SOUTH SHAKOPEE
Alternative Description Estimated City Cost
A No build option, no MUSA $500,000
expansions south of Bypass.
B Participating with MWCC in $4,600,000
Chaska Interceptor. The
estimated City costs do not
include future costs for
annexed Jackson Township lands.
C City constructs own gravity $8,900,000
interceptor sized to handle the
ultimate service area, including
Jackson Township. Cost estimate
includes easement acquisition costs.
D City constructs own gravity $7,100,000
interceptor sized to handle
only existing City areas - no
Jackson Township lands. Cost
estimate includes easement
acquisition costs.
E City constructs own shallow $5,400,000
gravity interceptor, sized to
handle only existing City lands -
no Jackson Township. Would
result in 4 permanent lift
stations. Cost estimate includes
easement acquisition costs.
F No interceptor at all. All $7,500,000
drainage goes to MWCC lift station
and MWCC interceptor 7023. Includes
Jackson Township area. Cost estimate
includes easement acquisition costs.
Would result in additional costs
of$6,600,000 to upgrade L-16
and 7023.
G Same as Alternative F, only excluding $7,000,000
any Jackson Township areas. Would
result in additional costs of
$6,000,000 for upgrading L-16
and 7023.
4s3
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: David Hutton, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 3 _
Chaska Interceptor
DATE: January 11, 1994
Please note that there is an error in my January 6, 1994 memo regarding the Chaska Interceptor.
The very first heading under background on the first page of my memo should read as follows:
"Directing all City of Shakopee Flow to MWCC Lift Station L-16"
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
C�an/ters ,
4*3
SEWER FACILITY AGREEMENT
•
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL (hereinafter "the Council") , the METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
(hereinafter "the Commission") , and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN (hereinafter "the
City") .
WHEREAS, the Council and Commission, following review and analysis, have
included in the Commis'sion's 1986-1990 Development Program plans for the
construction of a gravity interceptor sewer along the Lake Ann - Red Rock Lake
route as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and-made--a-par-t--
hereof, to convey sewage from the Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory
Creek interceptor; and
WHEREAS, the decision to build the Lake Ann interceptor was in part based
on representations by the City that if that portion of the interceptor lying
within the boundaries of the City and north of T.H.5 (hereinafter "the
- Facility") would simultaneously serve as a Commission interceptor and a local
trunk sewer for the City, the City would pay for a portion of the project costs
of the Facility over and above its SAC charge cost contribution and the City
would further agree to make necessary amendments to its comprehensive plan,
. comprehensive sewer plan and official controls to ensure the avoidance of
premature growth or urbanization in accordance with Council policies; and
WHEREAS, the Council, the Commission and the City have agreed that the
Facility can be designed and used simultaneously as a Commission interceptor
Sewer and a local trunk sewer for the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in the joint and separate exercise of
each of their powers, and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, hereby agree as follows:
- ..: SECTION 1.
•
~- _ RECITALS
•
1.1) Council and Commission - Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.146, the
Council has adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the collection. -
•
treatment, and disposal of sewage in the Metropolitan area. Minn. Stat. Sec.
473.511 authorizes the Commission to acpuire, construct, e:~uip, maintain and
operate all interceptors and treatment works neeced to implement the Council 's
Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan.
•
1.2) Lake Ann Interceptor. Chanhassen Secment - The Council and
Commission have aetermined that the Facility is necessary for and shall be
constructed pursuant to the Council 's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan and the
Commission's 1986-1990 Development Program. This work is to be undertaken
pursuant to the Commission's Project Nc. 82-53.
X0050 $ 50
1 .3) City Sewer - The City has planned the construction of a trunk sewer
along the general route of the Facility. The City has determined that the
joint use of a single sewer pipe to be constructed, owned, and operated by the
Commission will satisfy certain sewer service neecs of the City. The City
agrees that it will conduct ail proceedings necessary under law and ordinance
so as to authorize it to participate in the cost of the construction of the
Facility.
1 .4) Construction - The interceptor and• trunk sewer can be constructed
as a single pipe and the design of the Facility and its construction can best
be undertaken by the Commission.
SECTION 2.
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY -
2. 1) Plans and Specifications - The Commission has retained a consulting
engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the
Facility. The plans and specifications for the Facility shall include adequate
designed capacity to enable the City's use of the Facility as specified in this
Agreement for trunk sewer purposes, as well as use of the Facility as a
Commission interceptor. The Commission shall design the Facility to provide
capacity for saturated development of the land within the City tributary to the
Facility. This capacity shall be determined on or before Commission approval
of the plans and specifications for the Facility. Specifically, the Facility
shall , at a minimcma, be designed with 3.3 million gallons per day ("MGD") peak
•
capacity 'for City trunk sewer -use. The Coag i ss i on agrees to allow the City to
review and comment on the plans and -specifications for the Facility so as to
insure that adequate trunk sewer capacity is provided. Notwithstanding any
other provisions of this Agreement, the Commission shall be solely responsible
for approving plans and specifications for the Facility.
2.2) Contract Administration - Except as hereinafter provided, the
Facility construction contract shall be exclusively administered by the
Commission, and the Commission agrees to cause the construction project to be
completed in accordance with the design plans and the conforming construction
contract. The Commission snail provide a resident engineer to supervise the
performance of the work, but the City may inspect the materials for, and
construction of, the Facility at any time, and may request the Commission to
require the contractor to perform any part of the contract in accordance with
its terms, and to enforce any provision of the contract necessary to obtain
•
such performance. The Commission retains sole authority to determine whether
contractor performance is consistent with the terms of the contract.
SECTION 3.
PROJECT FINANCING
3.1) Project Costs - The City- agrees to pay the Commission the sum of
Four Hundred Eignty-two Thousand Dollars (S482,000) , together with interest at
the rate of nine percent (fie) per annum on the outstanding balance, as its
C0050851
share of the cost of constructing the Facility. Interest shall begin to accrue
as of the date the Commission awards the contract for construction of the
Facility:- This obligation shall be paid in twenty-one (21) installments
pursuant to the debt service schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein. The first installment shall be in the amount of
$43,380.00, representing interest accrued to the date of such payment. The
remaining payments shall be paid in 20 equal installments of $552,801.40
annually for twenty (20) years. The City may pay the outstanding principal
balance at any time. If it does so, it will pay interest on the outstanding
principal balance pro rata from the previous installment date to date of such
payment. This obligation shall constitute a charge payable to the Commission
under ?inn. Stat. Sec. 473.521. .
3.2) Installment Dates - The first installment payment shall be due
to the Commission on the date one year following Commission award of the
contract for construction of the Facility. All subsequent payments shall be
made on or before the anniversary date of the first payment. Payments shall, be
credited to the reduction of the principal amount in accordance with Exhibit B.
3.3) Connection Charoe - The City may, to the extent allowed by law,
establish a connection cnarge in order to provide money for payment of all or a
portion of its monetary obligations under this Agreement. Failure of the
City to institute a connection charge for any reason whatsoever shall not
relieve it of the obligation to make payments under this Agreement.
3.4) Acceleration of Payments - If any default is made in the payment of -
any installment, the Commission may at its option and upon thirty (30) days
,--� written notice to the City, elect and declare that the entire unpaid principal
amount payable by the terms of this Agreement shall become immediately due and
payable, and such debt may thereupon be collected by suit or other Legal
proceedings. The City shall have thirty (30) days from delivery of notice to
cure the default.
3.5) Confession of Judoment - The City hereby authorizes and empowers
any attorney at law to appear for it in any court of record in the State of
Kinnesota on default of payment of any installment due pursuant to this
Agreement and thereupon to waive issuance and service of process, to confess
juogarent against the City and in favor of the Commission for the principal sum
of this obligation, together with interest, costs of suit and reasonable
attorney's fees, and to release all errors and waive all right of appeal .
Prior to entering a default judgment, however, the Commission shall give the
City thirty (30) days advance written notice of its• intention to do so.
SECTION 4. - '
OWNERSHIP AND USE
4.1) OWNERSHIP or TN_ FACILITY - The'Commission shall be the sole owner
of the Facility and snail be responsible for its operation, maintenance, -
repair, and reconstruction. The Commission shall operate andaintain the
Facility in good, working order, and shall preserve and maintain that portion
of the capac i ty_ of the Facility as described herein for use by the City as a
• C 0 0 5 0 8 5 2
3
•
•
trunk sewer. The Commission shalr not be responsible for construction,
operation, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of any connection to the
Facility which is not constructed by the Commission as part of Commission
Project 82-53. -
•
' 4.2) City Use - The City shall be authorized to make use of the Facility
as a trunk sewer for a minimum of 3.3 MGD peak capacity at such locations as
may be authorized by the Commission •{which authorization shall not be
unreasonably withheld) , consistent with the provisions of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and the design •plans for the
Facility when areas tributary to the Facility are brought within the City's
urban service area. The City shall apply for a connection permit for all
direct connections to the Facility and shall comply with the Commission's
technical and engineering requirements for such connection. All costs of such
connections shall be paid by the City.
4.3) Indemnification - The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the Commission, its employees, or agents from and against all claims, damages,
losses and expenses, including attorney's fees, attributable to any claims
regarding of the trunk sewer capacity in the Facility.
�
Se 1� d •
• SECTION
5
• RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
5.1) Duties of City - The City shall assist the Commission in acquiring -
the necessary property acquisitions, rights of entry and other property
interests or permits n-.._ded for construction of the Facility and that portion
of the Lake Ann Interceptor lying within the boundaries of the City. Such
assistance shall include:
A. Conveyance to the Commission without charge, of all easements now
owned or hereinafter acou i re~ by the City along the final route of the
Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor.
$. Conveyance to the Commission, without charge, of any easements located
on property owned by the City which are determined necessary by the
. Coosa i ss i on for construction of the Facility or the Lake Ann
Interceptor. •
C. Approval and authorization for use, without charge, of public rights
of way within the City along the final route of the Facility and the
Lake Ann Interceptor.
D. Cooperation with the Commission in acquiring easements or other
property -interests from governmental suodivisions, business entities
and private individuals aetermined necessary by the Commission for
construction of the Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor.
5.2) Public Purpose The City stipulates and agrees that construction of
the Facility is for a public purpose and that ac uisition of property therefore
is necessary and authorized by law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1984,
Chapter 117.
00050853
SECTION 6
LAND USE PLANNING AND CONTROL
6. 1) Growth Control - In accordance with the Council 's Metropolitan Devel3
opment Framework and applicable policy plans, the City agrees to use its best
efforts to prevent the premature urbanization of areas outside the year 2000
Metropolitan Urban Service Are. Specifically, the City agrees that it shall co
and perform the following on or before August 1 , 1986:
(A) Submit to the Council for review an adopted comprehensive plan or such
comprehensive plan amendments as may be necessary to comply with the
following provisions of this Agreement. Amendments to the City's
Comprehensive plan shall be submitted to the Council for review and
acceptance pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act following
approval by the City's planning commission and after consideration but
before final approval by the City's governing body. Provisions of the
City's comprehensive plan which have been previously adopted by the
City and accepted by the Council shall not be subject to Council
review and acceptance hereunder except as may be necessary to enforce
the following three listed provisions:
1 . a provision designating a year 2000 urban service area containing
no more than 2440 acres of vacant developable land which includes
platted lots and undeveloped portions of certain large industrial
holdings, but does not include lakes, streams, or other
waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, areas with exposed bedrock,
.-� _- _ lands in Agricultural Preserves, public or privately owned park,
Open space and recreational areas, or facilities including golf
courses, streets, highways and other lands used for public
utilities.
2. a provision that the City will not exceed the Council 's
preliminary year 2000 sewer flow allocation of 1 .3 MLD annual
average flow or such final sewer flow allocation as may result
from revisions to the Council 's Metropolitan Development
Framework; and
3. a provision applicable to any future subdivisions designating
rural service density standards of one residential unit per ten
(10) acres in general rural areas and one unit per forty (1+0)
acres in agricultural rural areas, both with minimum lot sizes
greater than 2.5 acres, subject to variances as may be permitted
by law_ The parties recognize that this provision may include
- • elements to address unconstitutional takings, hardships and
- -- unique circumstances. - - _ -
•
-- The City agrees to adopt, after review and acceptance by the Council
and prior to August 1, 1986 the above-described e..x...,rehens i ve plan
amendments. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement,
no use of the Facility as a trunk sewer shall be permitted until the
City has submitted and the Council has accepted the above-described
- - . plan -amendments.
-
- �� t00� 0854
•
•
(B) Following Council review and Commission approval , the City shall adopt
a comprehensive sewer plan consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan as amended pursuant to this Agreement and containing within it:
t'Y'<='•
,-- 11-* a description of adopted on-site sewage disposal ordinance
provisions consistent withapplicable requirements set forth in
the Council 's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan including Policies
•42 through 47 and Procedure 10; and
2. a policy, ordinance and administrative program to reduce
storm.rater inflow i n the sewer system consistent with the
Commission's policies.
(C) Transmit a description and analysis of the difference between the
City's land use plan and its zoning ordinance provisions with respect
to items A (1 through 3) above and a method approved and adopted by
the City for reconciling the two which is acceptable to- the Council ;
•
if different from one another with respect to land use types,
densities, and urban service timing and staging. The City further
agrees that by May 1 , 1987, it shall repeal or appropriately amend any •
official control or fiscal device that is in conflict with items A (1
through 3) above of its comprehensive plan.
6:2) Modification - It is understood that the City may in the future,
following compliance with the provisions of 6.1, amend its comprehensive plan
•
•and/or comprehensive sewer plan including those provisions relating to its
urban and rural service areas and -sewer flow allocation, subject to Council
approval of comprehensive plan amencments pursuant to Minna Stat. Sec. 473.1856
and Sec. 473.175 and Commission approval of comprehensive sewer plan '
amer...aents pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513.
•
SECTION 7
SANCTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
7.1) Licirations on City's Richt to Use - It is expressly agreed that in
the event that the City comm i is a material breach or violation of any provision
of this Agreement, the Council or Commission may, following formal
consideration during which the City snail be given an opportunity to state its
position, delay or limit the City's right to use the Facility for trunk sewer
purposes or take such other action as may be appropriate, provided, however,
the Council or Commission snail not disconnect any connection by the City to
the Facility for whicn a connection permit has previously been granted pursuant
•
to Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Prior to any such delay or limitation, the
City shall be given a reasonab l e time wrh i oh shall not be less than n i nety (90)
says after notice in writing of the claimer violation, to achieve compliance
with the terms of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed to remove
or modify the liability of the City under Section 3 of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 7.1, the City snail have the
right to initiate such action or actions that the City shall seem appropriate
requesting a judicial determination of wnether a material breach or violation
of any provision of this Agreement has occurred and if so, wnetner the delay or
co. yC855
limitation on the City's right to use the facility for trunk sewer purposes as
imposed by the Councilor Commission or any other action taken by the Council
or Commission is appropriate and equitable under the circumstances.
•
7.2) Desion of Facility - Upon any breach of this Agreement
the Council and Commission may 'determine to design the Facility wi
_ capacity for the City, renegotiate the level of cost sharing with the City,
and/or take such other action as may be appropriate with respect to the design
of the Facility.
_ - 7.3) Fact Stipulations - To assist in the enforcement of Section 6 of
this Agreement, the parties hereto agree and stipulate to the following
findings of fact:
(01) The City has received from the Council an amendment to the
Council 's Water Resources Management Development Guide. The Guide
is a metropolitan systems plan within the meaning-of: binn. !Stat.
' Sec. 1+73.856 and Sec. 473.175.
(02) An amendment to the City's present comprehensive plan is
necessary under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 to ensure conformity
with metropolitan system plans.
(03) The City's present comprehensive plan with respect to the matters
specified in Section 6.1 (A) of this Agreement constitutes a
substantial departure within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sec.
173.175 from but not limited to, the allocated sewer capacity for
the City listed in the Water Resources Management Development
Guide and Policy Numbers 8 and 9 thereof.-
(04) Any amendment to the City's comprehensive plan that dors not
comply with the provisions of Section 6 of this Agreement
likewise constitutes a substantial departure from the Water
Resources Management Development Guide within the meaning of
Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175.
The parties hereto have entered this agreement in express reliance on the above-
stated facts and the parties shall be estopped from denying or contesting the
truth of said facts. It is expressly agreed that if the City fails to perform
the tasks specified in Section 6 of this Agreement, the Council may obtain a
court order under Minn. Stat. Sec. 4i3_175 recuiring the City to perform those
actions specified in Section 6 of this Agreement. No action or inaction by the
City pursuant to any orde.r, judgment or decree of any court, governmental or
administrative agency shail constitute a violation on the part of the City of
any provision of this Agreement, provided that if the City cannot meet its
obligations pursuant to Section 3 because of such order, judgment, or decree,
the Council and Commission shall have no obligation to provide trunk sewer
service to the City under this Agreement.
7.4) Ci:-r's Remedies - It is expressly agreed that in the event that the
Council or Coomission.violates any of the provisions of this agreement, the
City may, in addition to any other remedy at law, seek specific performance of
this Agreement.
i' - •
-
CO ,
)50 856
7
IN WlTHg�S WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the , '1
day of 111 0/7/1'1 1980
Approved as to for METROPOLITAN COUNC L
�f.
�5�. aL1 B Cj).147./.
Its: Chairperson, and
c O
•
Its: Executive Director
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL
COMMISSION
A/Nor• ec,171.
BY: 6-11} 9/.//%,„ 7/ • /.
Mark D. Thompson I ts: Cha i rpeca-onand
Leo?' Counsel, M.W.C.C. //
U
By: tz" 6
Its: Chief Aosainistrator
CITY C ANHASSEN /
. By: /s� z /1 --�
its: Mayor, and
0:2-S--17)
By: /
Its: City Manager/Clerk
•
•
C . O5 °857
8
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing Sewer Facility Agreement was signed and swor to before
me on 77f c.4' �: /9t& by nn - iek./•-11,'.��-' and /h-✓
Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Chanhassen.
Notary Publ c U
-••• KAREN J. ENGELNARDT
STATE OF MINNESOTA) " NOTARY KRIM • MINNESOTA
) SS. • CARVER COUNTY
i. "5'0oen..u.0a scores 10.1641
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoin Sewer Facili% Agreement was signed and sworn to befor
me on q /9e16. by /17/€4,-- E 41-4. 1.4.44 ►tic- and L.-OLA i S T . I_c< E'er t.vLArrt
Chairperson and Chief Administrator, respectively, of the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission.
Notary 1' b l i c
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS• t !A:/7,19:7
--�
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The ore;oing Sewer Facility Agre men• was sig a� and rn to before
me on �/�iL�./(,/9, /45�o b ��r an _
Chairperson and Executive Director, respectively, of Metropolitan Council
. Notary Public//
LOA20A fzis ��
ei: tine c'Yar oc c
NOTARY PIALIC—MI 5O1A •
RAMSEY COUNTY
My commission expo...Nov.29,1986
•
•
QQ050858
•
•
�� - _ --sem = _. -, .
_ `
/J • -
• • _ XiN.Yv•J '• s �' ^� Y• • .1 �.
•••
• ins `=7•••••••/.... % ��Y'. •^ ,v ~ 1
1
rs
r• .•—• `,f) .rte r
ale
I •
ice\ - - O �` „^ -1
•
•
��� /- moi\ •
:��• ••••••I •".
mac.• i` .".1` • \=•f\ 7\ .1 - =
W
+-w 1111 f. - - t•-• •
_ !+o_-
.
i I...MI
`_.tammo
er. • �.: .= • =` • t _; -
- •••••••••••••••;„../ r-.- - t, -,1\ 11.1
„.„..,......-,.5_‘.---.---... N + - -/ ' !' • 1 3 -x .kr..:
ami
-.- eZ
'>"- ( `'
Mem
1-::".' '"... .-- : •.: / . \
•
:.........'" c...7.... ,...,.... ...t..11e-....._••. I. ...„...... . .. .
•
i \ 1 v.. r
•I
} rte. ...............•� •='�.V s. s.i-
•
Llim,
• Yis;
• -�`-.\ — �� • •� ;
%
,_..:,, -.... �:'J_ J c--' i - s
• • •
EXHIBIT E
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
5482,000 20 years 9% 552,801.40
Principle Interest
1. 0.00 S 43,380.00 5 43,380.00
2. S 9,421.40 43,380.00 52,801.40
3. 10,269.33 42,532.07 52,801.40
4. 11,193.57 41,607.83 52,801.40
5. 12,200.99 40,600.41 52,801.40
6. 13,299.08 39,502.32 52,801.40
7. 14,495.99 38,305.41 52,801.40
E. 15,800.63 37,000.77 52,801'.40
9. 17,222.69 35,578.71 52,801.40
10. 18,772.73 34,028.67 52,801.40
11. 20,462.28 32,339.12 52,801.40
12. 22,303.88 30,497.52 52,801.40
13. 24,3 11.23 28,490.17 52,801.40
14. 26,499.24 25,302.16 � .
5_,80_ 40
1E28,884.17 23,917.23 52,801.40
16. ,483.75 21,317.55 52,801.40
17. 31
18. 37,405.84 18,484.11 52,801.40
1 395 6 52,801.40
19. 40,772.37 12,029.03 52,801.40
20. 44,441.88 8,359.52 52,801.40
21. 48.441.66 4_ V4.74 52.801.40
S482,000.00 567,408.00 51,099,408.00
C005086 °
r.•;:_ .
sur _.....i:..
', ,. 6
facility-related information to affected local cil supports sharing costs for regional facilities
governments. between metropolitan levels of government and local
government within appropriate guidelines. The
Council will enter into cost-sharing if it can
LOCAUREGIONAL COST-SHARING demonstrate a net benefit to the region and project
is consistent with development framework policies.
During this time of diminished federal and state Before entering into such an agreement, the Coun-
funding support, the Council plans to investigate cii will also make sure that outside funding is not
alternative sources of funding for regional facilities. significantly changing the priorities in the affected
One alternative that the Council has already used regional system and that the integrity of the regional
successfully is local/regional cost-sharing. systems not directly affected is maintained. The
Council will take care to ensure equitable allocation
The Council will consider local/regional cost-sharing of the costs and use of the "shared" facility by the
only/at the request of a local government.The Coun- affected local governments.
•
•
•
•
•
1
I
-
M (_____,
Hcc . r -�
Post-It'"brand fax tra /_ _
To ,/��.- From t��'St
1
i 1
WATER ��h,
�. Co. r /" �,
Co.,-.i7- . e .5 cGt'.v ccut r
' RESOURCES
Deft. i Ph•nep �C/(_ 4 571 1 Fax# ALa-c67' FaxN 0 _ 0
MANAGEMEN .
6=01=1:5220152=r
Part 1, Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan
2 . . • ..
•
•
'
FVE_L_OPMENT GUI DF :-' :w �.. ; _1988
�:-__ METR.OP4tliA�i�1__b1� _ __: — _
Continuation of the commission involvement with 2. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
joint-use agreements puts the burden of
maintenance and repair and legal liability for The commission will a) identify interceptor
damages on the commission for facilities that it sewers that should be taken out of the system;
doesn't need. Local units of government can b)solicit advice and comment from local units
continue to cooperate on joint use of interceptors of government served by the metropolitan
through joint powers agreements. They do not system about the program for removal of
require par:icipation of the commission to engage interceptors from the system; c) terminate
in such arrangements. joint-use agreements; and d) request that a
facility be defined as a metropolitan
The commission,with the approval of the Council, interceptor if it is so warranted.
rents local interceptors from time to time to serve
an area for which no metropolitan facility is yet 3. Local Units of Government
available. These rental agreements should
continue as long as they are needed and should Local government units should arrange to
be reflected in the implementation plan. acquire intercepters needed for local service
and use joint-powers agreements for
POLICY 1 - 6A inter-municipal service where metropolitan
interceptor service is not appropriate.
Interceptors that no longer have a role in
providing metropolitan-level sanitary Issue: Provision of Metropolitan Interceptor
sewer services should be removed from Service to New Areas
the metropolitan system and either capped
and abandoned or reconveyed to local The Council has agreed to provide new or
units of government with fair expanded sewer services to areas planned to
compensation made to the Metropolitan accommodate new development when a
Waste Control Commission. All facilities legitimate need is present. There is a question of
that are reconveyed to local units of whether this expansion of interceptor services is
+I government should be fully functional. to be provided in a way that minimizes local sewer
system investments by substituting metropolitan
POLICY 1 - 68 facilities wherever possible, or conversely,
minimizes metropolitan sewer service investment
All joint-use agreements with the by doing the minimum amount required to provide
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission the opportunity for local governments to tie into
for local service should be terminated at the metropolitan service.
the earliest possible date. Any joint-use
collectors at qualify as metropolitan The options for extension of new metropolitan
facilities should be acquired by the interceptor service to communities are a) extend
commission prior to termination of the the metropolitan interceptor to a convenient point
joint-use agreement. For facilities that do at the community's border and have the
not qualify as metropolitan interceptors the community tap in local sewer interceptors at this
commission should assist the local point; b) extend metropolitan interceptors well
governments in negotiating an acceptable beyond the community boundary to the lowest
agreement among themselves but in no elevation (for local gravity flow), into each
case should the commission be involved in subwatershed in the community, or adopt some
joint-use agreements after January 1990. other routing that is determined by local sewer
plans; c) use any of these options depending on
Implementation Activity specific situations and the various solutions at
hand. The first of these options minimizes
1. Metropolitan Council metropolitan investment. Variations of the second
option minimize local investment. The third option
The Council will a) review the commission's keeps all doors open, but this flexible position also
1989 implementation program for interceptor ' runs a risk of inequitable treatment of local units of
status; and b) act on any recommendations . government over a period of time. The C. )uncil's
from the commission on adding current I responsibility is to ensure that metropolitan sewer
joint-use sewers to the metropolitan system. service is available to a city in step with planned
urban development. Because of land
23
Water Resources Management Part I
characteristics or municipal boundaries, a city or service is brought within the city's
may desire to be served at more than one access boundary, or when timing of service is
point in the metropolitan interceptor system and moved forward for the convenience of the
the Council may consider such requests. The municipality, the Council will consider the
Council is not responsible, however, for providing financial implications and ask t h e
service at every location within a city;it is the city's community to share the cost of providing
responsibility to develop a municipal system that the additional service.
serves the local needs. The primary responsibility
of the Council is to provide service to the Implementation Activity
community's border. Another collection point
within the city could be selected if it is determined 1. Metropolitan Council
to be more convenient to the local collection
system and metropolitan interceptor. The Council will a) require all proposed new
interceptor extensions in future commission
One of the Council's roles is to take a metropolitan implementation plans to adhere to this policy;
viewpoint of controversial issues and to consider and b) notify local units of government
the entire population of the Metropolitan Area as preparing local comprehensive sewer plans or
its prime constituency. This important amendments of this policy.
consideration, plus the need to be equitable and
fair in dealing with all local government units, 2. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
outweighs the advantages of policy flexibility.
The commission will a) review local
A situation may occur where sewer system comprehensive sewer plans in light of Policy
improvements are needed to support regional 1-7; and b) follow this policy in expansion
development goals earlier than programmed and proposals presented in the commission's
full metropolitan funding cannot be made available implementation plans.
at the time. A good example of this kind of
situation is fo. .OW- e i ue discussion 3. Local Units of Government
associated wits Policy 1 -1:7, •=re a major, new
economic dev- ••- • or big expansion is Local government units should plan to
dependent on new or expanded regional sewer develop their own internal sewer system and
facilities and services. A promising way to handle not depend on the metropolitan system to
such a dilemma is to enter into a local/regional serve needs within the individual community.
cost-sharing arrangement. Prior to acting, the
Council would have to determine that a proposed Issue:Eliminating Service Constrictions
sewer improvement is fully consistent with its
Metropolitan Development and Investment The existing metropolitan sewer system is made
Framework and wastewater policy plan, and that up of facilities constructed over a period of nearly
the supported development will bring a net benefit 100 years. This kind of incremental acquisition
to the Metropolitan Area and meets sewer priority inevitably results in some links that do not fit well
criteria. In brief, the full integrity of the into the overall system.The size,confiuration and
metropolitan sewer system plan and program condition of various sewer system links often act
must be retained. Local governments involved in as impediments or constrictions on the system
cost sharing should understand that the proposed delivery operations. Constrictions are particularly
facility will be part of the metro sewer systE.-n and prominent where several interceptors connect and
not under local jurisdiction. often occur in the inner portions of the urban
service area. In these inner-area locations,limited
POLICY 1 - 7 available capacity may constrain expanded use,
although the rest of the system might have more
The Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan 'han adequate capacity to meet foreseeable
Waste Control Commission shall minimize needs. A relatively small investment in the existing
the number of locations where new facility might allow for more efficient use of the
metropolitan interceptor service is larger system,thus avoiding major investments to
provided to a municipality. The primary extend new interceptors.
responsibility shall be to provide service at
the recipient community's border. Where
additional connections are to be provided,
24
3 POLICY 1 - 8 now 50 or more years old and rapidly approaching
its useful life, the need for a more systematic
A high priority for remedial action should inspection, maintenance and program
be given to removing critical impediments replacement should be addressed.
or constrictions that adversely affect the
operation of the metropolitan system. POLICY 1 - 9
Implementation Activity A systematic program to inspect, maintain,
repair and replace metropolitan
1. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission interceptors should be established and
carried out. Top priorities on interceptor
The commission will identify and evaluate improvements should go to interceptors
bottlenecks in the system and take steps to that are in a weakened condition and could
remove them. It should give top priority to cause a major pollution problem, safety
those most detrimental to system operations. concern or property damage should they
fail.
Issue: Metropolitan Interceptor Maintenance,
Repair and Replacement Program Implementation Activity
Among the interceptors acquired by the 1. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
commission are some built as early as 1886.
These interceptors and others constructed before The commission will a) reexamine its program
or shortly after the turn of the century are still in of metropolitan interceptor inspection; and b)
use today. Up until about 10 years ago, major establish a plan and program that will provide
interceptors, especially those in St. Paul and for each implementation plan budget to
Minneapolis, were inspected on a periodic basis include funds for interceptor improvement
by diverting all sewage to the river and carrying work and an ongoing inspection program.
out a first-hand interceptor inspection. In recent
times, this has become impossible because the Issue:Area Development and Delivery of Sewer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has Service
prohibited bypassing untreated sewage to the
river. Therefore,the physical condition of some of The Metropolitan Development and Investment
these old interceptors is not well known. Framework is the Council's plan for future
development and change in the area. This plan
When a break in an interceptor occurs, it is recognizes the potential that expanded
customary to divert the flow into alternative pipes, wastewater facilities have for encouraging growth,
or if this is impossible, to bypass the system and particularly when the expansion occurs in
discharge it to the river. In some locations where non-urbanized areas. The framework provides
no receiving waters are available, a break in an that wastewater disposal facilities,whether new or
interceptor could pose a catastrophic situation acquired, are to be expanded consistent with
with severe damage to public health,property and growth management goals, and are to be
to the environment. developed based on the framework with respect
to size, timing and area to be served.
Surcharging, which is-filling a pipe beyond its
design capacity, promotes pipe failure. The framework provides for nearly all the region's
Surcharging often occurs as interceptor capacity urban expansion during the remainder of the 20th
is being reached. This practice can cause stress century to occur within the metropolitan urban
and bring about eventual pipe failure. service area, as defined in 1987. This urban
service area includes the 12 freestanding growth
During the 1970s and 1980s, both the Council and centers. To support this position, metropolitan
the commission have put priority on wastewater sewer services must be managed so that they
treatment plant upgrading. These activities have serve only the lands within the urban service area.
helped protect water quality and expand services; Extension of sewer services is the key factor, not
however, little attention has been given to the the location of the facility itself. At the present time,
needs of the aging interceptors other than where there are two metropolitan wastewater treatment
capacity became an issue. Considering that 20 plants located in the rural area, and there may be
> percent of the metropolitan interceptor system is more in the future. The important thing is that
25
Water Resources Management Part I
these two plants and any in the future must provide framework; b) use the urban service area and
service only to lands within the urban service area. framework data in reviewing local
With increasing concern about water quality, it is to malprehensive sewer plans; and c) refer any
highly unlikely that any large-scale urbanY generated requests for sewer service
developments in the future will occur on land that extensions outside the urban service area to
does not have centralized wastewater collection the Council.
and treatment facilities. On-site disposal facilities Issue: Role of Municipal and Other Rural Area
are not suited for urban development. Thus, the Wastewater Treatment Facilities
extent of future wastewater treatment and
handling services plays a key role in determining Sixteen municipal wastewater treatment plants
whether the framework plan will be effectively that serve outlying small settlements are not part
carried out. of the metropolitan sewer system, but the
POLICY 1 - t oA cc. ition of these plants is of very substantial
interest to the Council. The plants help to offer
Metropolitan Area residents the choice of an
Metropolitan sewer system facilities alternative lifestyle within easy reach of the urban
should serve only lands inside the area. It is uneconomical and it promotes urban
metropolitan urban service area, including sprawl to extend metropolitan sewer services into
the freestanding growth centers and those the outer reaches of the region. Rather; the
rural centers and parts of the rural service municipal wastewater treatment plants should
area that are served by the metropolitan continue to provide service to these small,outlying
system in 1987. Timing and sizing of urban clusters.
metropolitan sewer services will be based
on population, housing and employment In addition to the settlements served by municipal
forecasts prepared by the Council. wastewater treatment plants, there are several
POLICY 1 - 10B other small pockets of urban concentrations
scattered about the rural area, especially around
lakes. A variofzed
Metropolitan services will not be extended methods re availableoto caabateex sang disposalo
n
to the rural service area, and any pollution to meet water quality standards tingforpotlhese
problems resulting from development developments. The major challenge is to handle
activity or inadequate management of existing pollution in a way that does not stir-ulate
existing sewer facilities must be resolved
additional urban development in these locations.
and financed by the local governments
involved. The Council will support local POLICY 1 - 11
governments in obtaining technical and/or
state/federal financial assistance. ►
Jiunicipal wastewater treatment plants,
Implementation Activity package plants and stabilization ponds are
acceptable to serve rural centers, as
1. Metropolitan Council defined in the Metropolitan Development
and Investment Framework. These types of
The Council will a) delineate the urban service facilities, plus group on-site sewage
disposal systems, are acceptable to abate
area and any additional changes to it; b) pollution problems caused by existing
prepare population, household and
employment forecasts for all cities, townships small urban concentrations not designated
as rural centers. Facilities for rural centers
and counties; c) amend the framework and
system plans, as warranted; d discuss and other small urban concentrations must
be sized to handle development levels as
altering the configuration of the urban service
forecast in the framework. These facilities
area with local units of government. must be administered and financed locally.
2. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
The commission will a)develop facility service
delivery plans that incorporate the urban
service area boundaries and forecasts in the
•
26
AMENDMENTS
TOTIE
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT
FRAMEWORK
(MDIF)
POLICIES FOR THE RURAL SERVICE AREA -
Adopted
December 5, 1991
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Publication No. 640-92-012
AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF)
INTRODUCTION
On the pages that follow are amendments to the Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework (MDIF) that were adopted by the Metropolitan Council on December 5, 1991. The
amendments affect three sections of the MDIF. New language is indicated by underlining.
Language that was deleted from the MDIF is stricken (stfislken).
Pages 1-9 of the amendments modify pages 22-25 of the MDIF, beginning with the section titled
"Rural Service Area." This is part of the Geographic Policy Areas section of the MDIF, and
contains the policy statements.
Pages 10-14 are modifications to pages 33-35 of the MDIF section titled "Planning and
Investment Procedures: the Council and Metropolitan Systems." This section gives direction for
future revisions of other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; in this case, the
Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan and the Transportation Policy Plan.
A small change was also made to the section on parks which relates to the rural area. This
change is being made now in order to incorporate policy direction from the recently adopted
Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan. It is consistent with discussions
of urban-generated uses, held in connection with the rural policy study.
Pages 15-16 are two new appendices to the MDIF. The first is "Criteria for Council Approval of
Local Plans That Are Inconsistent With MDIF Rural Area Policies." The second is "Land Uses
in the Rural Area." This clarifies for the Council and local governments what land uses are
appropriate for the commercial agricultural region as compared to the general rural use area.
For additional copies of this document, for the Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework itself, or for additional background information, contact the Metropolitan Council
Data Center, 230 E Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101; telephone 291-8140. The MDIF costs $5; the
other documents are free.
Questions about the policy amendments should be directed to Anne Hurlburt of the Council staff,
291-6501.
AMENDMENTS
TO THE
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT
FRAMEWORK
(MEIF)
PART ONE
MDIF, Page 22-25
RURAL SERVICE AREA
The focus of the Council's growth-management strategy of encouraging growth within an urban
service area requires an accompanying policy that limits growth in the rural area. Extensive
development outside the metropolitan urban service area is not appropriate because it can lead to
premature and costly demands to extend regional services such as sewers and highways, and does
not take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the urban service area.
Development outside the urban service area contributes to urban sprawl and increases the costs
of services. Some services that require higher concentrations of people to be cost-effective, such
as transit, may become prohibitively expensive.
Development in the rural area also results in demand for local services, and can change the
character of rural communities. While existing service levels may be low, new residents are likely
to demand additional services. Development can result in erosion of the natural and man-made
environment that attracted residents in the first place. Conflicts often develop between new
exurban residents and residents who depend on agriculture for all or part of their livelihoods.
Development in the rural area can have adverse impacts on the quality of the natural
environment. Protecting and maintaining the quality of surface water and groundwater is a key
concern of the Council. While technological advances have improved on-site sewage disposal
systems, their proper installation and maintenance is still a critical concern.
A common misconception is that agriculture and other rural activities are only temporary land
uses, just waiting for the land to be developed. Most of the rural area will not be needed for
urban development in the foreseeable future. Agriculture and rural land uses are legitimate and
permanent land uses in these areas.
As the region grows, there will be a need to expand the urban service area into some areas that
are currently rural. There are potential regional, as well as local, impacts from inappropriate
development of the rural areas that may be needed to expand the urban service area. If
communities do not plan for their future urban service areas before development occurs, it is
possible that land uses and development patterns may later block the contiguous, efficient and
cost-effective extension of local and regional urban services.
1
The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area
policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan
transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require
communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies.
Some communities cannot comply with all of the Council's policies for the rural area because they
have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with the policy. In the past, the Council
has found these plans to be inconsistent with regional policies, but has not provided a procedure
for making exceptions to the policy where it may be warranted. Criteria for Council approval of
inconsistent plans are provided in an appendix to this document.
Commercial Agricultural Area
The commercial agricultural area includes those lands certified by local governments as eligible for
agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach
places the responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local governments. With Council
protection policies for commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local
government plans and protections, local and regional policies support one another.
The amount of land included in the commercial agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000
acres in 4-9851990. This constitutes over half the farmland in the seven-county area. -
The geographic area defined as the commercial agricultural area is subject to frequent change
when tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land can go into and out of certification
when local governments decide to alter its status. Local governments may replan and rezone
certified areas if a change in policy is desired, but this change must occur as a public process. For
the purposes of this document, the commercial agricultural area is defined as the area certified as
of March 1 of each year. This date is the end of each Council reporting year required under the
Agricultural Preserves Act.
Under the Agricultural Preserves Act, a local government passes a resolution certifying land
eligible for protections and benefits and limiting housing density to one unit per 40 acres. The
certified area is then considered long-term agricultural land. The local comprehensive plan and
zoning ordinance must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers owning land within the certified
area may then enter the program. Land in the program is referred to as covenanted land. The
Agriculture Preserves Act provides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property
taxes at development value and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal commitment to
continue farming for at least eight years.
Within the commercial agricultural area, all land has been certified by local governments as
eligible for the agriculture preserves program. However, the Council recognizes two levels of
protection in the commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary protection areas.
Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as agricultural preserves. They will receive the
greatest protection possible from incompatible uses because the greatest level of commitment to
farming has been established.
2
Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the area that have not yet €erred-been covenanted
as agricultural preserves.
The Council believes the commercial agriculture area is a place where agriculture is the best
permanent use of the land. Long-term investments in farm equipment and in land preservation
can be made with the confidence that urban development is not going to destroy or limit these
investments. -
General Rural Use Area
The general rural use area is the area outside the urban service area that is not designated for
commercial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area falls in this
category. The area contains a wide variety of land uses, including agricultural, residential and
urban-type facilities. There are sizable parts of the general rural use area that host no particular
kind of land use--land that is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its
residents are tied economically to the urban area and many of its land uses provide services to
people living in the urban service area.
General Farmland ..
A large part of the general rural use area is devoted to agriculture. The Council supports the
continuation of agriculture and encourages local governments to support it by zoning agricultural
land at one unit per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zoned that are subsequently certified
eligible signup for the agriculture preserves program, the Council will reclassify them as part of
the commercial agricultural area.
Rural Residential Development
Rural residential development may be an appropriate land use in
areas that are hilly, wooded or otherwise unsuited to agricultural production. The-Ceunsil
The Council supports this type of use as long as the density does not exceed one
housing unit per 10 acres of land. The Council will compute rural residential density on the basis
of 640-acre parcels (one square mile or section based on the public land survey). This will
prevent excessive clustering of a large number of homes on small minimum lots that sines, isout
. . _ ,. • .. . `: - _. . • . . ..._. . - - ... _- • . ... ... . could result in the
need for urban services, such as package sewerage disposal systems.
Some communities in the rural area have significant land area in public parks and open space, or
wetlands that are legally restricted from development. Others have protected large amounts of
agricultural land by designating it part of the commercial agricultural area. The Council will
recognize this when it applies the density policy. Lower densities in areas restricted from
development may be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations,
provided it does not result in excessive clustering that would create demands for services (such as
sewer and water systems, storm sewers, roads and other urban services) not typically needed in
3
rural developments. The only areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water
and major metropolitan highway rights-of-way.
The Council encourages communities to implement the density standard through clustering where
appropriate and consistent with local planning objectives. Implementing the density standard as a
10-acre minimum lot size is simple to administer, but may result in an inefficient development
pattern and in more land removed from agricultural production than if smaller lot sizes are used.
Clustering may aid in adapting the density policy to the diverse character of the landscape. Some
areas have lakes, wetlands, wildlife areas, large areas of public lands or difficult soil conditions
that make clustering more desirable. Other areas have good agricultural land that can be
protected through clustering, and used to balance the density of development on areas less suited
to agriculture.
The Council does not recommend a minimum lot size. Lot sizes in the general rural use area
should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they should ensure at least two
sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the
original system fail. All residential development in the general rural use area must be subject to
the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring
provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against
negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system.
Existing Urban-Density Development
Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and clusters of moderate-density residential
development also exist in the general rural use area. They frequently demand urban services but
are in locations where urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The Council's principal
concern is the potential need for the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and particularly
metropolitan sewer service. r- = -_. - -- . _ _ _ __ _ •- _ - _ . . . ..._ .
-_ _ • - ._ -_ _ . .. _ _ '. _ _ . . . . _ . Local governments with existing urban-
density development should address the operation and maintenance issues of on-site systems to
avoid potential problems and the eventual need for costly local investments.
Urban-Generated Uses
Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that require isolated and spacious locations but
may be intended to serve the urban or entire metropolitan area public. These facilities include
campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks, regional parks, trails, waste disposal installations,
racing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and similar facilities, and are usually public or
quasi-public in nature. The general rural use area is an appropriate location for these facilities.
The Council's interest is that these facilities are provided with adequate public services adequately
served, consistent with local and regional plans, and to the extent possible, that they do not
interfere with agricultural activities.
Other Land Uses
In addition to agriculture, single-family residential development, existing development and urban-
generated uses, there are other land uses that may be appropriate in the general rural use area.
Whether or not a land use is appropriate depends on whether it is consistent with local and
4
regional plans and if it meets all environmental quality standards. An appropriate land use would
not require urban-level support services (such as highways, transit or sewers). Uses should be of a
scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the
extent possible, they should not interfere with agricultural activities.
One category of land uses that may be appropriate in the rural area is neighborhood convenience
retail, such as a grocery store or gasoline station. If it is of an appropriate scale to serve local
residents and does not need urban sewers or highways, it may be appropriate in the general rural
use area.
Even though a particular land use may be acceptable from a regional perspective, the Council will
not recommend that every community provide for every possible land use in its rural area if it
would not be consistent with local plans. Each community must determine whether particular
land uses would be compatible with existing uses, local standards and the goals of the community.
All uses would be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements.
Examples of uses that may be acceptable are included in an appendix to this document.
Lot sizes for all land uses should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they
should ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a
replacement should the original system fail. All development in the general rural use area must
be subject to the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on-going-
monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure
against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system.
Rural Centers
Rural centers historically have served as retail service centers and transportation centers for the
surrounding rural area. However, changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed
the traditional rural service roles of many of these small centers to residential areas for urban
people and locations for industries with little tie to local agriculture. The latter make use of
available labor in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be dependent on close contact with
other firms for their supplies or critically dependent on transportation.
The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with populations ranging from just over 100 to more
than 5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Young America, encompass the entire
corporate limits of the community. Others, such as Lake Elmo, are small enclaves within a larger
rural community.
Services available within rural centers vary. Some have central sanitary sewer; others depend on
on-site waste disposal systems. Some have central water systems. Some provide the full range of
convenience retail stores, while others have only a bar or gas station. Some have small
manufacturing or service businesses; others are almost exclusively residential. The Council does
not support the extension of regional systems to rural centers because of the distance from the
urban center and the small populations of rural centers.
Rural locations in the past decade have been attractive and some, although not all, communities
have experienced an upsurge in growth, principally residential development. Development trends
are down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but continue at modest levels into the 1980s.
5
Several services are important in adequately serving additional rural center development, but
sewage disposal is the most critical. Urban-density development in an unsewered rural center
poses the risks of on-site sewage system failure, contamination of groundwater and eventually the
expense of new on-site or central sewer system installation. The possibility also exists that
remedying a pollution problem may require an extension of metropolitan sewer service through
rural areas. Lack of sewer service is a serious constraint on the amount and type of development
that rural centers can safely accommodate.
Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially Anoka County, are receiving large amounts
of scattered urban development. This scattered development poses service problems and may, at
a later date, result in very high local service costs. The Council proposes a strategy that offers
local government an alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a
"rural center." These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban-density land uses, facilities
and services within the local governments' broader corporate jurisdictional boundaries. They
would not be coterminous with the entire corporate limits. Under this strategy, a local
government would identify an area to receive urban-density residential, commercial and industrial
development and the facilities, including local central sewer, where appropriate, needed to serve
it. Financing of necessary support services would be a local responsibility. Areas of existing
urban-density uses are likely candidates for selection as new rural centers.
Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their ability to finance
and administer services, including sewer, roads, water and stormwater drainage. If additional land
is needed to accommodate growth, rural centers should extend services in a staged, contiguous
manner. Residential, commercial and industrial development at urban densities should be
accommodated only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that are meeting state and federal
water quality standards. Larger projects should be located in freestanding growth centers that
have a full range of services.
Rural-to-Urban Transition Planning
Rural-to-urban transition areas are areas that may eventually be needed for expansion of the
urban service area but are currently part of the rural service area. While these areas will not be
considered a separate regional policy area, the Council encourages local governments to plan for
potential expansions of the urban service area in their comprehensive plans.
Communities planning for transition areas should consider land characteristics (such as soils,
wetlands, watershed boundaries, agricultural soil capability), existing land use and development
patterns, the transportation system, and long-range plans for expansion of local and regional utility
systems. Transition areas should generally be contiguous to the existing urban service area. In
most cases, it would not include the entire jurisdictional limits of the local government, but might
if the community wishes to plan for the eventual urbanization of the area.
Land in a transition area should be protected from incompatible development patterns and land
uses that may later obstruct the extension of urban services. The most effective strategy to
protect the transition area is to restrict development to very low-density (one per 40 or less)
residential development or agricultural uses, which preserves large parcels intact until they can be
subdivided into small lots and provided with urban services. If residential subdivisions are
permitted, clustering should be encouraged. The large parcels remaining may later be efficiently
6
resubdivided, and the smaller, clustered lots can be more economically provided with services or
bypassed if necessary.
Local governments should use caution in implementing "ghost platting" or similar methods for
subdividing land into large lots with the intention of resubdividing them when services are to be
provided. Resubdivision and installing utilities in existing subdivisions can be a very difficult
process and result in higher costs. The development pattern established may not be appropriate
or desirable when the area is incorporated into the urban service area.
Local governments may also want to consider whether the land uses permitted in transition areas
would discourage or prevent urbanization in the future. For example, a use that requires a
spacious, isolated location should probably not be located where it is likely to be surrounded by
incompatible urban development in the future.
The Council will review local comprehensive plans that include plans for rural-to-urban transition
areas, but will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area or to
any time frame for expansion of services beyond the urban service area. The Council will
continue to apply its policies and criteria for expansion of the urban service area when a regional
need has been demonstrated. The Council will support local efforts to prevent development
incompatible with future urbanization.
The Council will examine the need to plan for urban-to-rural transition areas in its metropolitan
systems plans. Local plans will be considered but will not determine the transition areas
designated for regional purposes.
RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES
17. The Metropolitan Council does not support extensive development outside the urban
service area because it can lead to the premature expansion of local and regional
services, and fails to take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the
urban service area. The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent
with the Council's rural area policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a
substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment
systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require communities to modify
comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. The Council will consider
exceptions to the policies for local governments that cannot meet the policies because of
existing subdivisions or land development.
Commercial Agricultural Area
1.78. The Metropolitan Council supports the long-term continuation of agriculture in the
rural service area. The Council will use the following ranking in decisions to
accommodate facilities serving urban residents.
1. Primary protection area: land covenanted in agriculture preserves will receive
primary protection. Urban facilities should be prohibited in this area unless there
7
is strong documentation that no other locations in the Metropolitan Area can
adequately meet the siting and selection criteria.
2. Secondary protection area: lands certified but not presently in agricultural
preserves will receive a level of protection secondary to agricultural preserves.
Urban facilities should not be located in this area unless there is strong evidence
that a proposed urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area.
General Rural Use Area
4819A. The Metropolitan Council supports long-term
preservation of agricultural land in the general rural use area. However, the Council
will also support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10
acres computed on a 640-acre basis (a maximum of sixty four units per 40_aeres square
mile based on the public land survey). The Council will allow land area in public parks
or open space, wetlands that are legally restricted from development, and agricultural
land that has been designated as part of the commercial agricultural area to be used to
balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, provided that it would not
result in excessive clustering that would created demands for urban services. The only
areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water and major
metropolitan highway rights-of-way. _
1913. The Council encourages clustering of residential development, which will result in a
more efficient development pattern and help to protect agricultural and environmentally
sensitive lands. Lot sizes in the general rural use area should be determined by
performance standards. At a minimum, they should ensure at least two sewage disposal
drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original
system fail.
19C. The Council will not extend metropolitan systems to serve urban-density residential
development in the general rural use area. Where urban-density development already
exists, a local government should address service issues in its plan, particularly on-site
sewer system operation and maintenance.
19D. In addition to agriculture, single family residential development, existing development
and urban-generated uses, the Council will support other land uses in the general rural
use area, provided that they are consistent with local and regional plans. Appropriate
rural land uses must meet all environmental quality standards, not require urban-level
support services, and be of a scale compatible with the services available and the need to
serve local market demands. To the extent possible they should not interfere with
agricultural activities.
Rural Centers
2044 The Metropolitan Council will support a rural center's plans to accommodate additional
growth provided they are consistent with the center's ability to finance and administer
services, particularly sewer service. The Council supports rural center service
improvements but not at regional expense.
8
210. The Council will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its
requests for state and federal grants, provided the local government restricts urban
densities from surrounding rural areas and will support the new center with necessary
service investments.
Rural-to-Urban Transition Planning
22. The Metropolitan Council will encourage local governments to plan for urban-to-rural
transition areas in their comprehensive plans, and will support local efforts to prevent
development incompatible with future urbanization. The Council will not commit to the
future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area until such time as there is a
demonstrated, regional need to expand the urban service area in accordance with
established Council policies and criteria. Local plans will be considered but will not
determine transition areas designated for regional purposes.
9
PART TWO
MDIF, Page 33-35
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES:
THE COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS
The Metropolitan Council is concerned with managing metropolitan systems in ways that will help
realize the objectives for long-term development of the region as reflected in this document's
discussion of the geographic policy areas. The following metropolitan system guidelines provide
direction to the Council's systems for developing the more detailed policies and programs
contained in the individual system plans. The metro governance process, discussed later, explains
the procedures for carrying out the guidelines through the actions of the metropolitan agencies.
METROPOLITAN SYSTEM GUIDELINES
The Council is committed to providing regional services and facilities within the urban service
area. However, the Council will not support development of facilities substantially in excess of
forecasted need. The challenge to the Council and commissions is to find the middle ground
between overbuilding and undersizing essential facilities. - t.
Some facilities that deliver services to the urban service area will have to be physically located
within the rural service area even though they primarily serve people living in the urban service
area. This may result from land requirements, the location of natural resources or the need for
interregional connections. For example, solid waste landfills with requirements for large acreages
will likely be located in the rural service area; sand and gravel extraction and regional parks
depend on the location of the resource and often occur in the rural service area; and highways,
power lines and pipelines that tie this region to other parts of the state and nation will have to
traverse the rural service area. When urban facilities must be located in the rural area, they will
be located, developed and operated in a manner that minimizes interference with agriculture and
the rural settlement pattern.
Sewers
Only land within the urban service area will receive regional sewer service. Service will be
provided in accordance with regional and local staging of development as outlined in the Council's
sewer policy plan and local comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional
plan. The Council will take the necessary actions to provide metropolitan sewer interceptors and
wastewater treatment plants adequate to transport sewage generated by users in the urban service
area and to treat it to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the national pollution
discharge elimination system permit for each treatment plant. Central sewer service currently
provided in rural centers can continue at levels consistent with each center's ability to finance and
operate systems locally. In rural centers or any other part of the rural area receiving regional
sewer service, the Council will determine regional service allocations for sewer flow using the
same procedures that are used for other communities located within the metropolitan urban
service area.
10
The Council will assure the continuation of service adequate to meet the needs of development
currently receiving regional sewer service. In order to meet this commitment, the Council
emphasizes the need to monitor the condition of older sewers and sewers with a history of
problems, as well as the trends in sewage volume as opposed to design capacity.
The Council will also work for increased coordination between the sewer and the solid waste
system in the area of planning and project development of composting and co-composting.
Recycling residuals from the waste treatment process with municipal solid waste may help resolve
disposal problems confronting both the sewer and the solid waste systems.
The Council will establish standards for on-site sewage disposal systems in the rural area to
protect the region's groundwater and the health of rural area residents, and to prevent the need
for premature extensions of the regional sewer system. All elements of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency standards for on-site sewage disposal systems should be followed in all areas. All
communities should require at least two sewage-disposal drainfields to be located on each building
site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. Except in the
commercial agricultural area, all facets of the Council's standards for the proper design, location,
installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring of on-site systems should also be adopted. The
Council will require all communities to certify that they have met these standards prior to
approval of local comprehensive plan amendments or making favorable recommendations in
proiect reviews. E-
The Council will review its existing policies concerning community on-site sewage disposal systems
and package treatment plants in the rural area in light of the Council's policy to encourage
clustering in the rural area and the improved technology which is or may become available in the
future.
The Council will also consider whether monitoring of rural water supplies may be necessary to
detect pollution from on-site sewage disposal systems.
Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should address the impacts on the system from
development outside the urban service area; specifically, impacts on the service availability charge
(SAC), and the underuse of metropolitan sewer facilities.
Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should also consider how local comprehensive sewer
plans should address the urban-to-rural transition areas, and protect them from incompatible
development that may later block the efficient extension of the sewer system.
Transportation
Metropolitan highway improvements will be planned and developed to serve the needs of
residents in the urban service area, including the freestanding growth centers. Highways will be
provided in accordance with the Council's regional transportation policy plan and local
comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional plan. Varying levels of
highway service will continue to exist in the urban service area due to travel behavior,
development patterns and the nature of highways facilities, but efforts will be made to provide a
reasonable level of metropolitan highway service throughout the urban service area.
11
The Council influences metropolitan highway development in a variety of ways. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) constructs and maintains most of the roads in the
metropolitan system, and the ultimate authority for highway programming decisions rests with the
state commissioner of transportation. However, Mn/DOT seriously considers the Council's
highway policymaking and project planning in virtually all metropolitan area highway priorities.
The Council approves construction on controlled-access highways and develops guidelines for
setting highway priorities as well as guidelines for approval of interchange improvements. The
Council is also responsible for endorsing Federal Aid Urban and Interstate Substitution funding
priorities, which are set by local elected officials acting through the Council's Transportation
Advisory Board.
Highway planning is very important because the ability of people to take advantage of the
opportunities the area offers and acquiring essential goods and services depend on having a good
highway system and on keeping it operating well. This means roads on the existing system must
be able to provide the type and level of service designated in the Council's transportation policy
plan. Traffic management strategies or new construction will be necessary when traffic volumes
approach design capacities, when road conditions pose hazards and slowdowns, and when new
developments are proposed that differ substantially from assumptions made in the regional
transportation plan. Implementing traffic management strategies for metropolitan highways is a
state or regional responsibility that frequently has direct or indirect implications for local systems.
Local governments will have primary responsibility for carrying out traffic management strategies `-
on local systems.
New sources may share the responsibility for funding new construction with the traditional county,
state and federal sources. New sources may include the region, local governments and the private
sector. With the potential for funding and operational limitations, denying access to the regional
system may also be necessary for unanticipated new developments.
Highway planning should also address air pollution caused by heavy concentrations of auto, truck
and bus traffic. Although this problem has traditionally been associated with the two metro
centers, it is a growing problem in the regional business concentrations where highways are
reaching capacity.
The relationship between metropolitan highways and outstate Minnesota is another consideration
in highway planning. The Council recognizes the importance of outstate connections, particularly
for economic development., . • - . . ._ '. _. _ .. .. . _ . _
Metropolitan highways in the rural area will be planned to support a level of development
consistent with the Council's rural density policies. The Council will not plan for a level of
service that would support or encourage development greater than the policy except where an
exception has been approved according to the guidelines of the Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework.
Highway planning must also consider the urban-to-rural transition areas, and how rights-of-way for
the system of principal and minor arterials that will be needed in the future should be protected
from incompatible development.
12
Buses operating on streets and highways will probably dominate public transit service through the
remainder of the century. This does not preclude the introduction of some fixed-guideway
facilities in heavily traveled corridors, but costs and time constraints work against a massive shift
in form over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, the Council will continue to seek creative, forward-
looking solutions to transit service problems.
Locations with large numbers of households and/or high employment in relatively small areas
offer good potential for public transit service. It is also important to provide transit to the people
who have no other way to travel. This generally means elderly, handicapped, low-income and
young people. Providing service to these people will probably involve above-average subsidies.
Some parts of the urban service area with low-density development may be served only by
paratransit on a demand basis. This is also true for some of the transit-dependent people who
live in low-density areas or cannot use the public system. Regularly scheduled regional transit
service will not be provided to the rural service area, but residents of the area can arrange for and
finance public transit or public paratransit on their own if they so desire. This does not preclude
the Council or the Regional Transit Board from becoming involved in planning for the special
mobility needs of elderly and handicapped people in the rural service area or for the use of public
funds specially appropriated for this purpose.
Transit planning will take into account the cost of providing transit services to low-density areas, •_
and how that may change over time as transit-dependent populations increase in these areas.
Planning for highways and transit should consider the relationships among transportation needs,
population densities and the provision of human services including public schools, health and
social services, employment opportunities and emergency services.
Parks
The regional parks and open space system includes facilities in both the urban and rural service
areas. Regional recreation open space will be acquired to serve the needs of today's urban
population and to preserve outstanding natural and recreation resources for the area's future
population. Facilities will be developed according to priorities in the Council's regional park plan,
which will emphasize the needs of residents in the urban service area.
The development of regional park facilities that attract large numbers of users will generally occur
in the urban service area, unless the demands cannot be adequately met. If it is necessary to
develop such facilities in the rural service area, adequate support services such as roads and
sewers must be provided.
Airports
Every effort will be made to get the maximum use out of the existing airport system, consistent
with the Council's airport policy plan. This is especially important for the "major" and
"intermediate" airports, all of which are located in the urban service area. These facilities should
continue to operate and to operate safely even if it requires substantial upgrading of existing
facilities and modifications or controls on nearby land uses and development proposals. Land use
13
compatibility is critical to ensure future as well as current adequate operations at the regional
airports.
If a new "minor" airport site is needed, lands in the commercial agricultural area as defined in this
document should be avoided. In addition, the only facilities developed on or adjacent to the
airport should be those directly involved with making it useable and safe.
Other Area Systems
This framework focuses on the four metropolitan systems of sewers, transportation, regional parks
and airports because the Council has special obligations and responsibilities for them under the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under the Waste Management Act, the Council's solid waste
program has the same status in many respects as the four metropolitan systems and will receive
the same level of protection as those systems. However. The Council also has planning
responsibilities for several other systems that serve the residents of the Metropolitan Area.
Currently, the Council has adopted plans dealing with housing, health, surface water management,
juvenile justice and water resources, as well as major position papers on the aging, arts and
development disabilities. All of these planning documents and the programs associated with them
contribute to metropolitan resource management. The Council must direct attention to the
impact of this framework and metropolitan system plans on these other area plans and programs,
as well as the extent to which the other plans and programs modify the development and _
investment framework and metropolitan system plans.
The Council also recognizes that numerous interrelationships exist among the other area system
plans and the metropolitan system plans. Examples include aging and health, transportation and
housing, and sewers, solid waste and water resources.
For some of the other systems, the relationships are less obvious. However, all of the systems,
whether designated as metropolitan or not, have the following in common: a) assumptions about
future directions of area-wide growth and change and reliance on a uniform set of forecasts; b)
accountability to Council legislative mandates; c) concern with orderly and economic development;
d) adherence to the same process of regional planning and decision-making; and e) reliance on
the area's population for most of their financial support.
14
PART THREE
MDIF, Appendices
Appendix: Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans that are Inconsistent
with MDIF Rural Area Policies
Some communities in the rural area have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with
Council policy. Specifically, some communities have already developed at residential densities
greater than one unit per 10 acres. This appendix provides criteria and procedures for review and
approval of local comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the density policy.
Exceptions to the policies for the rural area will be considered only for communities that cannot
meet the policy because of the existing subdivisions or land development. The Council may
approve an exception as part of its review of a local comprehensive plan. The extent of the
exception will be based upon how well the community will or has:
• protected good agricultural land.,
▪ protected wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.,
implemented performance standards for on-site sewage disposal systems that are consistent
with the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan; and -
• adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with all Metropolitan Development Guide
chapters, especially those for the metropolitan systems (sewers, transportation, aviation
and parks.)
In order for the Council to support an exception to the rural density policy, the community must
provide the following as a part of its comprehensive plan amendment:
1. The total land area (acreage) of the community, adjusted for surface water and major
highway rights-of-way.
2. The number of existing lots of record.
3. The amount and location of land owned by public agencies or occupied by institutional
uses and restricted from development.
4. The amount and location of undeveloped land, with an analysis of its development
potential based on current and proposed planning and zoning.
5. The amount and location of land planned and zoned for uses other than agriculture and
residential development, with a description of uses that will be permitted.
6. The amount and location of agricultural land uses, and any areas that will be certified
eligible for the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program.
7. The amount and location of wetlands, with information demonstrating how such areas will
be protected from development.
S. Copies of all local ordinances relating to adoption of performance standards for on-site
sewage disposal systems.
9. The location of any proposed rural-to-urban transition areas, along with plans and policies
to protect such areas from premature or incompatible development.
10. Additional information that may be necessary to brim the local comprehensive plan into
compliance with metropolitan systems plans.
11. Schedule for implementing the plan amendment.
15
Appendix: Land Uses in the Rural Area
This appendix helps clarify what land uses may be supported by Council policy for the rural
service area, and provides guidance for both the Council and local governments.
It is important to remember that even though a particular land use may be acceptable in the rural
area from a regional perspective, the Council will not recommend that every community provide
for every possible land use in its rural area if it would not be consistent with local plans. All uses
would also be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements.
Land Use Recommendations for the Rural Area
Policy Area Examples of Consistent Land Uses
Commercial Agricultural: broad range of agricultural land uses, including horse boarding and
Agricultural Region training, kennels, sod farms, tree farms, fish production and processing, storage areas or
buildings; for primary protection areas, uses consistent with 1980 Agricultural Preserves
Act
Residential: single famity residences at a maximum density of 1/40 acres, accessory
apartments
CommerciaUlndustrial: small on-farm operations normally associated with farming
Institutional: urban generated facilities, such as waste disposal facilities; prohibited from
primary protection areas unless no other location available; prohibited from secondary
protection area unless no site in general rural use area available
General Rural Use Agricultural: all uses listed for commercial agricultural policy area
Area
Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/10 acres computed on
the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile), twin homes/duplexes (meeting density
standard), accessory apartments, group-living homes with shared cooking facilities
Commercial/Recreational and Urban-Generated Uses: urban-generated uses, including
recreational vehicle parks, racetracks, festival sites, campgrounds, gun clubs, private
airports, solid waste facilities, auto salvage and recycling, other similar facilities,
neighborhood convenience/service/retail uses, such as financial offices,video stores,
gasoline, groceries, daycare centers, commercial/service/retail uses adjacent to or served
by existing metro highways, agricultural products processing, home occupations, bed and
breakfast lodging facilities, dentist and doctor offices, landing areas for ultralight and
model airplanes, retreat facilities, golf courses
Industrial: sand and gravel mining, urban-generated uses that require a spacious,
isolated location, small manufacturing firms originating from home occupations, oil or
gasoline storage tank farms, refineries, solid waste transfer/processing facilities
Institutional: urban-generated uses, such as waste-disposal installations,jails, prisons,
public airports, human service agency satellite offices, parks, trails, open space, other
similar facilities, unique natural or conservation areas, schools, churches, cemeteries
\libtary,,rnpllib\com ppian\
mdifrupo
16